Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Endpoint

9/21/2017
09:23 AM
50%
50%

OPM Data Breach Lawsuit Tossed, Fed Plaintiffs will Appeal

A judge ruled federal employees cannot sue for damages from the 2015 Office of Personnel Management data breach.

Federal employees plan to appeal a judge's decision stating they cannot sue for damages from the 2015 Office of Personnel Management (OPM) data breach, The Washington Times reported this week.

The workers won't be able to sue because they cannot show the stolen data has been used by attackers, said US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson. Compromised information includes sensitive personal details like financial and health data, taken from about 22 million personnel files. Experts have not been able to determine whether the stolen data was sold or used.

Judge Jackson's ruling is getting pushback from employee labor unions, which had filed a class action lawsuit to help workers whose data had been stolen and force the government to better protect information. The National Treasury Employees Union announced plans to appeal on Sept. 19; the American Federation of Government Employees National is debating the next steps.

OPM responded to the data breach with new security tools and launched multi-factor authentication for employees. The agency also made plans to hire a cybersecurity advisor.

Read more details here.

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two days of practical cyber defense discussions. Learn from the industry’s most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the INsecurity agenda here.

Dark Reading's Quick Hits delivers a brief synopsis and summary of the significance of breaking news events. For more information from the original source of the news item, please follow the link provided in this article. View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
<<   <   Page 2 / 2
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
9/25/2017 | 11:36:09 AM
Re: Information vs Money
If a thief steals your money you don't have to prove they spent it only that they stole it. That makes sense, I wonder where the judge is coming from. Very strange decision.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
9/25/2017 | 11:34:55 AM
Re: Interesting
Lawyers love this stuff Yes, it does not make sense and confuses the public, that would help lawyers.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
9/25/2017 | 11:33:37 AM
Strange
The workers won't be able to sue because they cannot show the stolen data has been used by attackers This is new for me, so breach can happen but if data is not used that would not be consider an issue. Interesting.
REISEN1955
50%
50%
REISEN1955,
User Rank: Ninja
9/22/2017 | 2:39:41 PM
Re: Based on outcome
There is also a time-value on WHEN an attacker decides to use that stolen Mastercard number of SS number is there not?  An actor may wait weeks or months or have to dig through the 143 million stolen from Equifax before action is indeed taken.  Theft is theft - and break-in is theft writ large.  This is quite a legal tangle!!!  Kinda like stealing a car out of a driveway without breaking the window but parking it around the block until, oh, one night when it is sold for parts!!!  When IS the criminal act perfrmed?  
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
9/22/2017 | 8:28:02 AM
Based on outcome
I understand that this judgement was made based on the lack of evidence that attackers maliciously used the data in question but is there a statute of limitation for instances like this?
gwilson001
50%
50%
gwilson001,
User Rank: Strategist
9/21/2017 | 2:06:00 PM
Re: Interesting
That is the underlying threat here - a precedent that Equifax will surely jump on to ward off the class action suits against them.  This was a shortsighted decision by a Judge that clearly does not understand the problem or the the impact this stupid decision will have on millions of victims of the Equifax and other future data thefts.

This is a common probelm, the judiciary does not understand technology and they consequently make idiotic rulings based on that lack of understanding.  This could let Equifax off the hook as far as civil actions are concerned.  unfortunate because Equifax should not be allowed to continue as a business - they cannot be trusted with sensitive data we have not given them explicit permission to aggreagate and store.
REISEN1955
50%
50%
REISEN1955,
User Rank: Ninja
9/21/2017 | 12:41:35 PM
Re: Information vs Money
Good point - information theft is invisible if compared to car or money theft.  If a thief breaks into your home, that is a robbery.  If a thief steals a garden hose outside, that is theft.  There is a difference.  Information is invisible of course but if you went to your ATM and instead of seeing $33,202 in savings and there is $-29.33 there, I would think legal recourse has to be taken somewhere.  A thief broke INTO SOMETHING to get your data.  The thief did NOT RETRIEVE YOUR ATM CARD from the street.  Same difference.  

The answer to your question is WHO was guarding the vault?  Who has responsibility for the vault?  If i leave my house wide open with a sign saying MONEY IN HERE, then I am clearly at fault.  Same with Experian to a degree.
tim77
50%
50%
tim77,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/21/2017 | 12:25:18 PM
Information vs Money
Why should one have to prove they are damaged by having their information stolen? If a thief steals your money you don't have to prove they spent it only that they stole it. Information should be treated in the same manner!
REISEN1955
50%
50%
REISEN1955,
User Rank: Ninja
9/21/2017 | 9:40:34 AM
Interesting
Workers cannot sue because of a data breach.  Read that: PEOPLE cannot sue over a data breach - Equifax.  This could have enormous legal consequences - something to watch.  (Lawyers love this stuff).
<<   <   Page 2 / 2
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 6/4/2020
Abandoned Apps May Pose Security Risk to Mobile Devices
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/29/2020
How AI and Automation Can Help Bridge the Cybersecurity Talent Gap
Peter Barker, Chief Product Officer at ForgeRock,  6/1/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: What? IT said I needed virus protection!
Current Issue
How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-13842
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). A dangerous AT command was made available even though it is unused. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200010 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13843
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS software before 2020-06-01. Local users can cause a denial of service because checking of the userdata partition is mishandled. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200014 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13839
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). Code execution can occur via a custom AT command handler buffer overflow. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200007 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13840
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, 9, and 10 (MTK chipsets). Code execution can occur via an MTK AT command handler buffer overflow. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200008 (June 2020).
CVE-2020-13841
PUBLISHED: 2020-06-05
An issue was discovered on LG mobile devices with Android OS 9 and 10 (MTK chipsets). An AT command handler allows attackers to bypass intended access restrictions. The LG ID is LVE-SMP-200009 (June 2020).